SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
The "P" Word and Climate Change
Over the last two years we've gotten repeated comments and requests to address population growth as — if not as the root of all evil then at least as a fundamental problem that deserves more attention.
Rethomas wrote in during our Al Gore show:
So, we thought we'd ask some folks who ought to know: What's the relationship between population and climate change?
Do you know your carbon footprint? How important is the issue of population to you? Have you chosen to change your behavior as the result of your concern over either population or global warming? What questions about population do you have for climate change scientists?
GUESTS:
- Albert Kaufman: Founder of the Portland chapter of Population Connection
- Paul Murtaugh: Associate Professor of Statistics at Oregon State University and author of a study on population and carbon emissions
- Brian O'Neill: Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
Tagged as: climate change · populations
Photo credit: woodleywonderworks / Creative Commons
-
I think most people do not want to be told they need to limit how many times they reproduce themselves. "Right to life" doesn't just describe abortion issues. Right wingers do not want anything getting in the way of making more babies hopefully for The Church so as I'm sure anyone who has read any international news over the past ten or twenty years knows, birth control is a very big no no for foreign aid. From food security to overcrowding and the vicious abuse it brings to global warming, overpopulation is key. But you better be veeeerrrrryyyy careful who you say that to! Those of us who are closet ZPGers have figured out that the majority do NOT want to hear about anything getting in the way of their having more and more AND MORE babies. Some people who are against population overgrowth are that way because they are very weary of seeing their tax dollars going to support those who have offspring they can't themselves pay the way for. Others are watching with frightened intensity the global effects of just...too...many...people.
-
I agree with Jenifer. But with so few people believing like we do, how can we save the Earth from human disaster? We wise and observant ones have done our best to do more than our share but we are OUT NUMBERED. We must all desperately watch while the earth is eaten alive by mindless human masses, blindly, like a swarm of locusts, devouring everything and leaving mass distruction in their wake.
WHAT else is there to do but instigate MASS limitation on childbearing?
We have tried for decades at MASS education but it is not working.
-
"We have met the enemy and he is ALL of us." "For every 100 people hacking at the leaves of a problem, there are less than a few hacking at the root."
Humanity needs a better 'mirror' and a few beneficial mutations.
The media of all types, is our primary 'mirror'. I think we can perhaps judge the effectiveness of that 'mirror' by how many
females choose to have children with males that are more adapted to the complexities of global cooperation. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama might be pretty good sperm donors.
Yes, once again it is up to the wisest females to breed us out of this evolutionary dead end.
This is a long term project, so lets not put up any unnecessary roadblocks. I know, I know....., we don't have that much time. But still....., our species has been maladapted for at least 7,000 years.Doesn't it seem a terrible irony that globally conscious people with perhaps a smidgen of better adapted genes scattered among them, choose to not have children? [smile]
-
Over-population is the key to many societal and world issues. By not having kids, I have done far more to 'save the world' than those who have 2 kids, recycle everything and drive a prius.
-
Hear, hear. I have done the same and feel like you do.
-
Sometimes pictures help. Here is a short movie that depicts what uncontrolled human population growth looks like.
http://albertideation.com/2009/10/20/worldpopulationvideo/
This video was created by ZPG which is now known as Population Connection, and is one of the main groups working to raise awareness of the issue at hand. We do this through education: speaking in schools; lobbying Congress for more international family planning funding; supporting more and better sex education in the US; and basically trying to fill the unmet need for contraception in the world (including here in the US).
There are other great efforts to raise this issue. One is the Global Population Speak Out. Another is the Population Media Institute. The latter has an amazing e-mail list which will keep anyone who wants up to date with world population issues.
I coordinate a group of people who work on this issue in the Pacific Northwest. If you'd like to be included on our email list, please write me @ albertkaufman @ gmail.com - thanks for any effort you make to raise this issue.
-
Albert, I am trying to get a hold of you by phone. Please contact me. I need to get beyond email and actually meet some Oregon people who are doing to our purpose.
-
The Global Population Speak Out can be found here:
http://gpso.wordpress.com/
If you want to help, they have it easy to join. Just click on "I Pledge".
Here is text from their website:
The size and growth of the human population are fundamental drivers of the ecological crisis we face – no less crucial than over-consumption in developed nations. All habitat & biodiversity loss, atmospheric emissions and toxic pollutants can be traced back to the interplay of both these factors. If we hope to slow down and mitigate this worldwide tragedy, many experts agree, we’ll need to continue working strenuously on adopting eco-friendly, sustainable economic behavior, but also conduct a massive shift of attention and resources toward humane, progressive measures designed to stabilize and ultimately reduce world population to a sustainable level.
-
I would like to add that the producers and participants in television shows glorifying mass reproduction should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Having eight, ten, twenty kids is just plain irresponsible.
I also think that "Octomom" - as a start - should be billed every single month for the size of her litter's carbon footprint, not to mention the money taxpayers are having to contribute to the support of said litter. I don't feel there is any reason good enough or any excuse sound enough for having this many offspring.
-
Well said. I also find the 'twenty kids and counting' shows thoroughly irresponsible.
-
Octomom is mentally ill. So is the inseminating doctor who implanted her. Mentally ill people need to have their tubes tied. (I have had my tubes tied, and know that it is not painful). Octomom cannot pay the bills she has right now, let alone future charges. Niether can her parents who feel forced to help her care for the litter she has produced. The money spent on the hospital incubation of her litter has exceeded a million dollars. She can never catch up. The reality is that 'you and me' taxpayer are paying her bills, and will continue doing so. The best that could happen for PLanet Earth is that Octomom and her horde get "beamed up" to another planet and that no more Octomoms be allowed to exist.
-
Population growth seems to be the dead elephant in the room that no one will discuss. I am quite sure that the problems faced by the human race (ideological and environmental) would not be an issue if the humans only numbered in the hundreds of millions.
The crux of the problem is humans. There are simply far too many of them...
Thanks
Chutz Ponderosa.
-
Well, we're talking about it tomorrow! Let's assume for a second that you're right: that the problems humans face wouldn't be greatly lessened if we only numbered in the hundreds of millions (as opposed to nearly 7 billion).
How do you reduce the global population by more than 6 billion people?
-
David
I don't know how we should reduce the population, but we all can see (from the news media) how Nature does it: famine, disease, war. Those seem to be the default methods. And I, for one, don't like those methods!
As much as I fear China, I still have to applaud their foresightedness of "one child per family". Nobody likes it, but the Chinese government sees the Great Famine that has already begun.
-
Agree. A great resource,
PopulationElephant - a frank discussion of overpopulation
http://populationelephant.com/
also look at growthbusters.com
-
Cate Blanchett delivered such an amazing performance, in the recent New York run of A Streetcar Named Desire, that the show sold out. People waited outside the theater to try and somehow score a ticket, and many were willing to pay high prices from scalpers. The show only had a short run, and demand far exceeded capacity. There have been talks to try and bring the show to Broadway, but that may not happen. The spectacular performance of a great play with limited capacity, is a lot like the dilemma of trying to control population on planet earth. Many of us find that life on earth is a show too great to miss. We want to get a good seat in the theater, stay for the whole show, and some of us want to bring a guest or two. Not only that, but often we wish we could do it all over again, because one short performance is not nearly enough.
Ms. Blanchett and the production are not at fault for doing a great job, they shouldn't make the show suck to lessen demand. The production company is not at fault for scheduling too few shows, or failing to anticipate demand. The theater isn't at fault because it lacks the necessary capacity. The audience is not selfish for wanting to see the show, they are not selfish for wanting to bring guests. This is not a blame game, no one thing caused the kerfuffle. Theoretically, everyone should be able to see the show, with as many guests as they would like---anything else is a sacrifice and a compromise.
Wanting to live and have children on planet earth is not, nor will it ever be, a problem in itself. It is what we do! And realistically it is all there is to the world, it is the world. Seems silly to say, but we are the world. That is why we have a hard time talking about or agreeing on population control, because it is how we got here---it is the method to our madness. The thought of controlling it, and the reality of controlling it, means less 'you' and 'me's.' And, that is something big to give up. We have and will continue to tread lightly in this area, and perhaps rightly so.
If we have the options of extending the run of the play, adding more performances per day, expanding the theater, and/or adding additional seating to the theater we already occupy---we should evaluate those options, try those options, and perhaps exhaust those options before we lock the doors, and dim the lights on the marquee.
-
Well all this is quite nice, Scottmil but - weren't you the one in the previous Comments section that dealt peripherally with this issue (child free by choice) that advocated killing yourself if you didn't want to have kids, by some strangely reasoned mandate? I hope it wasn't you. I hope I am mistaken. At any rate, I suppose if everyone who didn't want to have kids killed themselves I guess we could be considered excellent martyrs for the cause.
The reality is if even ten percent of the world's (over)population took the no-kids pledge then in just a few years we'd have a really REALLY good start on the global food/climate/resources problem.
-
Jenifer,
Sorry, I guess you didn't understand my previous post or this one---or I have gone wrong somewhere. Perhaps, the writing isn't clear, I tend to wander and often ask too much of readers---or think they can read my mind and connect all the dots. I say that respectfully as I am intending to criticize myself.
To be clear I don't advocate suicide. I just went to that extreme in a attempt to show that if people really think the world is that bad, then why be in it? I think I also said something about having had issues, and having issues with depression, and apparently decided for some reason that I want to live, so there must be something about this world that I find appealing, even if I can't verbalize it or comprehend logically what that is. It seems like if I wanted a child, that child might also find enough joy in life not to end theirs. So, if people think the world is too terrible to be in or to bring kids into, and the sole motivation for not having kids is the quality of the world, then you have to wonder why they are sill in it---and you have to wonder how strong that hatred or dislike of the world actually is. It is useful to ask, because perhaps it challenges their view and gives them a little hope about the world. I think that seems like a rational, and pretty sound concept. If you have something to counter it please let me know. I would love to hear your thoughts on where I have gone wrong.
Perhaps, now, you can connect the dots on what your first paragraph has to do with your second paragraph and this topic---and why you hope that was not me? To be honest, I am a little sad/hurt that I spent a good amount of time thinking about this topic and you criticized me on what seems like flimsy ground.
-
Wanting to have children is not the problem. The problem is that we have children upon children. Do you need to reproduce without limit? Does your spouse want to bear 10 or 12 children? Will that satisfy your ego? I have two adopted children and they satisfy my need for family as well as biological children. There is a problem and either we control our population and its impacts or the physical and environmental constraints of the world will. We are NOT the world and soon we will learn that. When we have made it uninhabitable for us, life will still be here. But I doubt whether the cockroaches will be interested in going to theatre - unless of course there is something to eat there.
-
ihnvipnv,
We are very much 'the world' in a conceptual sense. I don't have a wife. I don't agree with the concept of marriage. I don't have children, nor will I be having any. I don't think I would be very good at it, it is a responsibility I do not want---if I did decide to consider children I would be too concerned that I was motivated by ego rather then love. But, those are my personal takes and don't have much to do with the world at large or other peoples motivations.
-
Hi Scotmil,
I think I understand what you are saying, and would like to reply. I don't have children not because the world is so awful, but because adding more people will make things more awful. Not because people are bad, just because adding a lot of people to the planet makes it harder to live here. It means more people who never know the joys of, for example, theater productions. I care about people and want everyone to have a good quality of life. We cannot do that if there is too many of us.
If just existing was good thing and quality of life didn't matter, then by that logic we should be encouraging our daughters to get pregnant starting at age 12 and everyone should be on fertility drugs.
I don't know too much about depression, but it seems to make one more self-absorbed. If you are concerned about the value of your life. Please be assured that every life, no matter who you are, is valuable beyond any measure. Adding too many of us cheapens human life. I hope you can see beyond the self-centered need to create more of your genes and find a way to care about ALL humans.
-
I find it very curious that we are willing to talk about, sometimes assess fees for, and in some cases dictate, how people impact our world in so many ways. We monitor emissions, fine companies for polluting, incentivize smaller residential lots and carpooling, create urban boundaries, regulate septic systems and water wells, etc. But we are scared to death to even talk about responsible family size.
What a bunch of cowards we are!
We have a lot of discussion of ecological footprint these days, but most who discuss it are afraid to discuss the number of feet. The math is quite simple: human impact = per-capita resource intensity X population.
I hope the guests on the show address recent studies revealing how reducing or eliminating population growth is the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reports on the carbon legacy of having babies.
Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity -
Here, here!
The fact is that we can all reduce our carbon footprints. And if we don't give birth to a kid then we reduce THEIR carbon footprint to zero. Along with the impact of all THEIR kids. And it doesn't hurt them a bit, because they don't exist.
For good HISTORICAL reasons, there is a world-wide cultural notion that children are a blessing. The fact is that we now have an excess of children. Getting American couples to adopt foster kids rather than giving birth to more babies would be a major positive step.
I've decided to not have kids of my own. I'm a great guy and all, but there's nothing uniquely special about my DNA that means it needs to be perpetuated. There are millions of kids as great as mine might be who I could pick up and raise or help support if the parenting urge strikes. In the mean time, I have a hundred kids to help educate. And education reduces unwanted babies (among the myriad other good things about it).
-
Right on! Just like using less electricity or gas is more effective in saving energy than building more efficient power plants.
-
It's all mathematical. It's called: Exponential growth. It is logical. Birds realize it: they try not to poop in thieir own nests. Humans are having to deal with E coli outbreaks because fecal material is getting into food scources. Crowding causes this to happen. Let's reduce crowds.
Simple logic.
-
Overpopulation quite often is a reflection of outdated views on family size. It is often found in families coming from countries largely based on agriculture and high infant mortality rates. Even after immigration to a more developed country these attitutdes persist. Fortunately one of the most effective birth control methods completely avoids any discussion of abortion. This technique is known as raising the education level of women . It also helps break down the culture of women as being servile without choice.
-
Education level of WOMEN ? How about you rephrase that to say "children". That gives BOTH genders the equal chance to be informed. But don't forget that RELIGION prevents lots of education in this world. And don't forget about how RAPE, all over the world affects population growth and unwanted children, especially during wars. My belief is that all people, world wide, should have 4 year college degrees in the study of Child Rearing, Child Nutrition, Child Psychology, Raising and understanding Teenagers, Adoption and Birth control (including all the different reasons and methods of Abortion) BEFORE they are allowed to make an application to get permission to gestate a child. What, you say? Not enough colleges? Well, then, let us people of the world make education the very first and most important thing in the world to promote and bring into being. Build colleges and pay teachers with tax dollars, rather than fuel war machines. Then we can have a chance at being intelligent about managing our species, don't you think? I also believe that all rapists should be shot on sight. That would surely be a deterrent to further rapes all over the planet, don't you think?
-
66 years ago there were approximately 2.25 billion people alive on this planet. Now there are approximately 6.7 billion. Ninety percent of human waste is not treated. Human activities have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[23](Wikipedia) It should not take a genius to recognize that more of us mean more pollution not to mention more difficulty reaching agreement about anything including global climate change.
Further there is no reasonable population "growth" model looking forward. All constant growth is exponential. What that means is that if growth is only steady at one percent it will still cause a doubling of the world population to 13.4 billion in less than 70 years. Right now we are adding 80,000,000 people every year.
We need a sustainable non growing population and a sustainable system of resource uses.
Population growth is the number one item above everything. Period!
Thanks
Ryboy
-
I am with you on this. In Russia the population is declining. This is because the average citizen realizes that there is a lack of jobs, they cannot afford more children, and that children are luxury. The people are ahead of the government on this one. The average person understands what level of population is affordable. Time for governments to understand that too!!!
-
Has anyone ever pondered a 'moratorium' on child birth? A scientist and statistician and economist who all believed in a reduction of world population would be the best to actually figure out what that would look like! I have often wondered.
-
Criticalthinker, thought you'd find this article about a 5-year moratorium on child-bearing interesting.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-playing-field/200902/the-five-year-ban-because-billion-less-people-is-great-place-start
-
Regarding problems which actively prohibit other issues from effectively being addressed: apart from money in politics, population growth is the single fundamental component contributing to conflict, resource depletion, sickness and climate change.
This is partially why a decade ago at the age of 23 I got a vasectomy. I've felt it's a major action I could take to show my commitment to the integrity of the science and to the importance of personal sacrifice or major life decisions that everyone must make, together, to help our global society progress.
So relieved to hear population growth coming back into the dialogue! I'm looking forward to the show tomorrow morning...
-
I agree completely. Remember stories of your parents about how nice things were when they grew up. No (or less) traffic, pollution, congestion, not so many houses, empty lots, places to play, less noise. Why did it all change? Because there are so many people. Schools are crowded. Highways clogged with trucks and cars. Lines to get to the DMV or post office or in the grocery stores. What a mess.
-
I, personally, find men kind of sexy who have had the wisdom to commit to a vasectomy out of their own volition.
Bravo to you, for getting one!
-
I got one, too! Thirty good years ago.
Anyone else?
-
When I was an undergraduate biology student of Michael Soule, a student of Paul Erhlich (The Population Bomb) we thought starvation would be the ultimate conclusion of uncontrolled population growth. We were wrong -- too many people will alter the environment and destroy our ability to exist. We must understand by not altering our behavior and continuing to over populate the world; we will make it uninhabitable for any humans. So the choice is ours, do we want as many children as we choose and leave them a world in which they all die or do we have one or at most two children later in life so that our grandchildren may live? Climate change is one manifestation of our ego centric life styles. Trying to solve this or any environmental problem without addressing population growth is simply futile. Reducing carbon emissions may buy us time but does not solve the problem.
-
ihnvipnv:
We weren't wrong about "starvation would be the ultimate conclusion of uncontrolled population growth". Starvation, disease, and war are Nature's way of balancing birth rate. Climate change will simply make those basic problems worse.
-
I remember the first EARTH DAY in 1970. I was so happy that the world seemed ready to pay attention. Boy, was I wrong! 40 years later and Earth Day never became what I thought it would.
What's it gonna take, people ! ?
-
It is not doing children a favor to bring them into the world now. Childbearing is often a selfish act: the parent intends that the child will take care of the parent in their old age. And kids are so cute, not to mention most often a result of unprotected sex. In some parts of the world and the US, children contribute work and money to the family, while single people die poor and helpless. We need to change this by creating good care for people who do not have family to care for them. When people can feel secure that they will be provided and cared for without children, then perhaps people will be more reproductively responsible.
We are not taking care of the present population well enough to add to the burden on the environment. It is completely illogical that US health care reform may omit abortion funding-- this perpetuates overpopulation and unwanted children in our country.
-
Good Points... But understand that the Religious Right thinks that if we mess the planet up enough Jesus will return and save us all.
This is why we keep on getting in trouble in the Middle East... Because the Religious Right thinks that they are doing God's Will by starting Armegeddon.
This same logic encourages these folks to have as many children as possible, and require others to do the Same.
And babies are so Cute when they are standing in the soup line.
-
May
I agree. childbearing is often a selfish act. Not too long ago, most people were farmers. Farming was labor intensive. Children were cheap labor.
But when it came time to divide up the farm among the children, each child got only a smaller farm-- maybe not enough to live on.
I very much agree that bringing a child into this world is no favor to that child. There are many days when I wish I wasn't born.
-
And after having two abortions and a tubal in the '70's, I was continuously accused of being "selfish".
-
Many people have an aversion to population control, and it isn't always a religious aversion. It isn't controversial just because people are being silly and irrational, there has to be more to it. It is hard to verbalize things you know symbolically or intrinsically, I tried to explain some of the concepts above, but (sorry) I thought of yet another analogy: abstinence only education. Population control is the most obvious solution to controlling our impact, it is like well yeah duh, of course that will work, like if I stop eating I will loose weight and if I don't have sex I won't get an STD or get pregnant. But that is a cop-out and a simple solution, in fact it isn't really a solution at all, it is a kind of giving up. We need to teach youths about sex, and when they have sex how to do so responsibly. And, we need to teach the world how to live responsibly. Even if you advocate population control, what will we do in the meantime? If we don't take physical measures to scale our footprint back now, won't we have already gone too far?
Population control can be part of the solution but it should definitely not be the only solution--- otherwise it becomes a justification to stick with our laziness. A way to go about business as usual, just with less players to get in the way. It gives each of us a bigger, greedier, carbon allowance. Most likely measures to slow climate change have other positive impacts on the environment and life in general. There is a certain nobility, in leaving a small footprint, an ethical grace. It is a struggle worth fussing over, it is one of the few battles some might find worth the fight. You can take an antidepressant and it can be useful, but it isn't really a solution, it is simply a crutch until you build the infrastructure to heal the mind. It is a patch up job like population control. Population control allows us to avoid the outcomes of our irresponsibility, it allows us to go on without addressing a big component of the problem. This is an extremely complex issue, and it is irresponsible to frame it with such certainty and fervor. (Continued...)
-
(...Continued) If I don't say this I will be typecast otherwise: I am not against population control. I just think we should be cautious and understand what we are doing, why we are doing it, and that population control is a last resort, because we have failed to control ourselves, to control our way of life. We are unwilling to give up how we live and would apparently prefer that less people are around, so we can go on doing what we do. To me there is something inherently greedy and selfish in that concept, especially if it is the main solution we advocate. Sure, it prolongs the life-span of planet earth by reducing the time based capacity or thinning it out over time, but it also asks too little of many of us. The only people that will have to sacrifice with population control are the people that wanted kids in the first place. At the same time we have sort of grandfathered in 6,791,300,000 people.
Population control obviously works, and that is beside the point, it is the ethical and conceptual issues that should be of interest to us, and we should have thought about them all before we act, because it is a big step to take and we should do so wisely.
-
We need to be clear that with 7 billion people on the planet, there IS no elegant, ethical way to live sustainably. Reducing population is not a last resort and not a way to enable laziness. We have no choice but to learn to live more lightly on the planet. But to do so elegantly there will need to be fewer of us doing so.
Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity -
Dave Gardner (GrowthBuster),
That is not clear at all! And, the fact that you are producing and directing a work on the subject, and haven't entertained the difficulty in assessing those statistics is rather scary and disappointing. Half-baked, ill-reasoned advocacy is often more harmful because it gives your opponents fodder to get hung-up on. Although to be fair to you, many people aren't savvy enough to notice, so you might get away with it.
Population control is a last resort in that we only need to resort to it because we have been irresponsible in how we impact the planet and we have been unwilling to control ourselves, our industries, our technologies and maybe even our birth-rates---and now we will be forced into it. Not a last resort? I think it is...
-
E.O. Wilson, "perhas our greates living biologist", lays the crux of this bare in his elegant book The Future of Life:
"The constraints of the biosphere are fixed. The bottleneck through which we are passing is real. It should be obvious to anyone not in a euphoric delirium that whatever humanity does or does not do, Earth's capacity to support our species is approaching the limit"(p.33).
Any hard won reductions we manage to achieve in shaving our ecological footprint are for the time being totally offset by rising global population as people work to meet their basic needs.
Noble as they may be, lets forget changing the light bulbs and biking to work for a moment. Instead lets find ways to begin talking about taking responsibly for the rate of population growth and the direct consequences population growth have on decreasing the quality of life on earth for all of us, especially our children and theirs, etc.
In the US at the moment it might well be politically untenable (at least in the terms usually used for talking about this), but perhaps only because we fear the perceived solutions to run-away population growth will be worse than the problem, which if left unchecked now, someday they may well be.
But for the time being in fact, ballencing of run-away population dynamics are the natural result of the some of the very values that most of the world's population currently aspire to: those of economic opportunity, greater community integration through technology, and of most direct importance: The empowerment of women!
(Again, Wilson): "The freeing of women socially and economically results in fewer children. Reduced reproduction by female choice can be thought a fortunate, indeed miraculous, gift of human nature to future generations. ... They opted for a smaller number of quality children, who can be raised with better health and education, over a larger family. They simultaneously chose better, more secure lives for themselves" (p.30)
Thank you ladies. (moral of the story: So the truer answers appear as usual when we revision the questions which they serve.)
-
scottmil---- seems to think that 'greed' can be eradicated from the human species. He does not know it is a reptilian reaction in the lower brain which existed far longer ago than recently. It existed before there was an overpopulation problem. He does not understand that with less humans, there will be less greed. Greed exists in all animals, including insects. It can be observed easily. It is an intrinsic animal reaction for survival. It is exacerbated by exponential growth of individual consumption.
-
To the poster formerly known as 'Anisa' how did you change your User Name to 'criticalthinker?'
Anisa, you can read minds too? We share the same mistake in common. Yes, I do understand the banal equation that with less humans there would most likely be less greed collectively---that is of course assuming that everyone left is not Imelda Marcos. Just as there would probably be less body hair on the planet if there were fewer people to produce it. But of course the issue is not that simple. Sometimes it is useful to reduce things to understand them, to scale them down. And, when you do so, it is also important not to discard the context, ethics and the other tricky variables in the discussion.
-
ScottMil,
Commenters can't change their own names, but that was a one-time perk (call it a holiday offering) that I made for a new commenter.
Dave
-
All human problems that are global i.e., peace, hunger, CO2 emissions, population control, uniform labor standards, uniform environmental standards, etc., all require a level of cooperation that is hard to achieve in a species that is prone to superficial markers; especially as they reinforce identity in small intimate survival groups. Sports anyone?
Our tribally adapted species, under the pressure of limited real estate, was able to stretch to make unnaturally large survival units. These difficult alliances were so much better than the alternative that for thousands of years people came along with the ultimate aspiration of taking over the entire world. Everything from flags, dress codes, common language, religion, ideology, have all evolved as we pushed the cooperative potential with ever larger 'identity'/survival groups.
But 'identity' on the global scale has proved elusive in all but the most educated. Plus every survival unit also requires effective communication, a common vision, and significant buy in. Empires ultimately were too big and failed. 'Nation States' seem to be the current standard, but even those seem too big in all but the best of circumstances. [And those are aided greatly by an external threat.]
The only thing that holds many Nations together is the sense that they are a survival unit that can somehow help its' citizens survive in a competitive world. Bottom line is; if the survival unit needs more people, it will have them. Nations panic if they start to loose too many people. Tribes and families make similar calculations.
It's not our fault that we are maladapted. But, all of the global problems - including population growth - are likely unsolvable, unless we can effectively deal with our species maladaption. -
Population growth need not be conceived as a global problem -- ask Russia.
In fact, trying to solve any problem in the intellectual milleu of "global" is an exercise in futility for the very same reasons cited about survival units.
Its as 'simple' as each nation making a commitment to population stabilization and sustainable economies.
-
Yep...... think globally, act locally. Wasn't that a motto of the 1970's ?
-
It's easy to judge people --especially people like the Octomom -- but let's look at the global system. The population explosion coincided with the petroleum explosion. Cheap oil allowed industrial farming with artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Now the cheap oil is running out and we're in a mess.
We need to change our way of farming. Get rid of Monsanto with its seed monopoly. Get rid of the IMF which forces debtor nations to cut social programs that might reduce population in a human way.
Let's look at the debt explosion. It can't go on forever, and it allows the rich nations to exploit the poor.
It's the rich people who use up the world's resources.
-
Discussion of our population density has been suppressed for so long that we often talk about the fact that there are too many of us without progressing to solutions.
Increasing the status of women is the single most important social factor for improving birth rates. Gender equality gains reproductive freedom and the opportunity for a life beyond wife and mother. Providing contraceptive services for the hundreds of millions of couples who want to limit their offspring and lack the means is critical to eliminating unwanted conceptions, but women's right to use those services must be respected as well.
Young people in the US who have decided not to procreate often have trouble finding a doctor to perform a vasectomy or tubal ligation. Apparently we are old enough to decide to breed much earlier than we are old enough to decide not to breed.
We have a long way to go to achieve both gender equality and universal reproductive freedom. It does little good to encourage responsible reproductive choice when there's no choice, and a choice isn't of much use if we don't realize we have it. -
Real Quick... When I was 5 years-old, we were listening to the Radio. (more informative than TV in the early 1960's) They announced that there was THREE BILLION people on the planet according to the 'Population Clock'.
Right now there is an estimated 6,791,681,062 people on the planet. The population has more than DOUBLED in my lifetime.
In the 60's we were often warned about overpopulation. People of my generation were advised to only have one child, two at most, to leave room in the world for others.
Nowadays everybody ignores the problem. We are turning fertile farmland into housing, and using our FOOD to make bio-fuels.
You see the end coming! (or at least I can) I am just gonna watch the show.
-
Anybody remember SOYLENT GREEN, the movie?
With all of the ignorant baby breeders pushing their strollers around and expecting the "seas to part" just because they are pushing thier precious bundles down the sidewalks, I also do not expect much to change soon enough.
The general population all over the world is at a very low level of intelligence and like lemmings, they will end up pushing those baby strollers right off the cliff and into the ocean. Unfortunately, I will be watching the show if I am still alive.
-
I think the moral issue raised by the developing countries at Copenhagen is valid. How can a nation like India, that has nealy half of its population without electricity, cut its greenhouse gas output at the expense of keeping its citizens in poverty? The subsequent question however is: how can the earth stand to have 6 billion people at a western standard of living? It can't. So what can we do? Well discontinue the current practice of paying people to have children. Since reproductive freedom ( the right to procreate) is protected by the U.S. Constitution the only real way we can change public policy is to change the tax structure. Instead of each child giving the parent a tax break, the first child should create a tax deductiuon. The second child (parental replacement) would cancel out the tax deduction and each subsequent child would increase the taxes to pay for the resources the family uses. We all need to realize however that such a decrease in population will change the social structure of society. Unlike the usual pyramid shape of society, the pyramid will be turned upside down and it will mean that eventually there will be fewer people to fund the current entitlement programs such as social security. Note Japan and other developed countries are paying parents to have children to avoid this eventuallity. What we need to realize is that we have been part of a true population pyramid scheme where earlier generations depend on younger generations to pay the debts they incurred. This will eventually have to stop or we will be choking on the exhaust of an ever greater population until we all collapse. Childlessby choice
-
Kitty Roca, you better stop being "tired" and get with the program. We child free by choice people are helping ALL of humanity. Many of us DON'T feel superior ... some feel SAD that we cannot have a child purely by wanting one because we responsibly are being part of the solution by NOT having one. Many of us do not eat meat. Many of us take public transportation. Many of us do not buy anything except food and get our clothes at second hand shops. We also use baking soda and white vinegar for cleaning agents in the house. Many of us grow our own vegetables. You better be aware of whom you are talking to. There are many, many solutions to the main problem and some of us are addressing many at the same time.
-
I am tired of people without children acting superior for their sacrifice they make to the planet. I believe consumption is more important. Try not eating meat!
-
9 billion people not eating meat will not do the trick. If you want to avoid addressing population growth, then try "not eating."
Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity -
Not eating meat is not a way of avoiding population growth. It is one of many ways to help the planet. Only looking at population is a narrow way to see the future. Or miss it. You should read Peter Russel.
-
A friend says and I quite agree: there is a one-word diagnosis for ALL the world's ills and that word is OVERPOPULATION. There is a one-word cure for all the world's ills and that word is EDUCATION.
When every life is precious and not considered disposable while fighting over increasingly scarce resources, there will be a reduction in war, sickness, poverty and starvation.
Facilitating overpopulation leads to exploitation by the few for the few of those too poorly educated by default or desire to fight back.
2012 can't come quickly enough, in my view, because frankly I don't think the problem CAN be fixed. There are too many vested interests of the exploiters, the powerful, the rich and superrich. Imagine! One of today's BIG stories was how well some exploiters did during the Great Recession (Second Great Depression). Imagine! Making BILLIONS for your hedge fund while people are starving, sickening and dying everywhere. Imagine! Our government handing essentially a health insurance company bailout to bloated unethical corporations with obscene profits while those unable to afford medical care die at the rate of tens of thousands per year.
Like I say - when there is less population then every life becomes precious.
We are an earth inhabited by babymills.
-
2012 will come and go... Just like every other supposed date for the "End Of The World".
Dates like that just allow people to do Nothing about their problems because they feel that it doesn't matter.
A few hundred cults have told us that the world is gonna end, and they were all wrong.
-
Jenifer knows how to say it. The rich and super rich will start to decay and may suffer like Tzar Nicholas in 1917 when the cart begins to tip over. Who is to say WHEN the cart will begin to tip or the straw be placed to break the camel's back? I don't know, but I do know that it has been beginning to happen since scientists began noticing things in the late 1950's. We have been warned and warned again and the rabbits keep on multiplying. One of my solutions is that every senator and congressman have by his or her side a 'scientist mentor' to consult with before making any speeches or decisions, and that scientist will NOT be purchased, but will be appointed by the Union of Concerned Scientists. No matter how 'sci-fi' my ideas appear, at least I am thinking them and putting them out there.
-
There has got to be a simpler way of stating the problem of Human maladaption.
Surely the 'fall of man' idea has been a misrepresentation of 'the end of habitats for tribes to keep expanding into'.
Surely the concept of 'good and evil' is, in some small part, a carry over of tribal man not grasping why, doing what comes natural is so disastrous in the post tribal world. -
Nothing makes me quite as sick or enraged as seeing a family of 5+ in front of me at the grocery store using food stamps to support their clan. Population IS a major problem. The religious pro-life maniacs and political correctness have protected the "right to have children" for far too long. Anyone who cannot admit that population is at the root of climate change is not being honest with themselves. I absolutely agree that we need to stop subsidising population growth. In our society the key to all of the handouts and good deals is having children. That is a serious problem. We need to reverse this trend and implement a qualification system for having children. I think people should need a license to have kids. Seriously - we have to qualify for a license to show that we are responsible onough to drive a car, why not for having a kid? The damage to the planet - and society - when people reproduce without restriction is a serious threat that must be dealt with.
Brendan D
-
When I was a young motorcyclist, I was passed by a station wagon driven by a young mother, about seven children in the passenger seats, and on the rear bumper, a "STOP POLLUTION" sticker was blackened by exhaust and a second sticker said "USE BIRTH CONTROL". I wish I had a digital camera that day.
-
Whatever happened to "Zero Population Growth?" This term was used during the late 60's and 70's in every discussion about preserving the planet, but I haven't heard any of our leaders use the term in years. Just as we need to look at multiple ways to generate clean power, we also need to look at multiple ways to reduce the stress we place on our planet. Zero population growth should be a serious part of that discussion. Do we avoid this discussion out of fear of offending the religous right and our consumer society advocates? Since most of the growth in population is coming from non European-based cultures, do we risk being called racist for suggesting all cultures are responsible for reducing population growth?
-
ZPG disappeared for several reasons but one is that people like you and me stopped talking about it every day.
Remember, the Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance
-
Another thing, don't assume that you can ever stop looking at your own community and point to others instead. As long as there is even one unwanted Teenage pregnancy in an American town, there is work to do right here at home; in a country with the most wasteful consuming population on Earth! That's YOU and ME. Get a group of friends together and bombard our Leaders by phone and letters with the term Zero Population Growth.
-
Regarding Population Growth:
If growth ever solved a social problem, the event failed to pass into history. Once extinction is avoided, the value of growth diminishes. Economists argue for growth, but ordinary folk are not their clients. The logic of occupancy limits on a public meeting room is a simple example of social wisdom.
Regarding Global Warming:
"Honey, the world is so vast, it can cope with whatever we little humans do." My sweet mother believed this as did most everyone (except Paul Ehrlich) in 1965. She also believed the hired black help at her parent's southern home were "happy." Her naivete was "common sense" in the 1960s. Today we know differently.
-
In 1970: Mr. Erhlich (mentioned above) predicted that during the 1980s four billion people would die from starvation. Much earlier: Thomas Malthus predicted, in roughly the 1700s, that large portions of the world would starve. We often make mistakes when we reduce problems into simple equations and statistics as many are attempting to do with this discussion---the quality and accuracy of our analysis are equally important. What Mr. Erhlich and Mr. Malthus failed to consider, when discussing finite physical resources, was the resource of ideas, innovation, technology and the intellect. They never took into account that we could create new methods of farming, distribution and other agricultural technologies that would increase production and accessibility of food. People have been putting a 'No Vacancy' sign on earth for a long time, but the thin line is difficult to predict.
-
Yes, it's difficult to predict when we will hit the point where technology can no longer save us. It could be today. I would not bet on continued technological miracles, especially when we cannot manage to keep one billion people from starving today.
Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity -
Dave Gardner (GrowthBuster),
Yes, and everyone should know, we can't keep one billion people from starving today, not because of resources, but because of poverty, distribution and politics. Planet earth has enough physical food to feed them, it just doesn't get to them.
-
Both made forecast mistakes which everyone points at. Both also said if humans do not contain growth, nature will -- as nature always does whether with Sitka deer on an island or white mice in a cage -- massive die-offs with illness, hunger, and in the case of humans . . . violence. In 1960 a billion people out of three billion were hungry. I remember the promise of farming to feed the hungry. In 2000, after unprecedented agricultural invention, a billion people are still hungry. Without family/city/state/nation population planning, growth defeats the promise of technological achievements. Growth hurts.
-
I would add; we expand the niche and people fill it. And they don't fill it in the way that detached observers would like. It always gets filled a little beyond safety margins and cooperative potentials.
-
The thought of how fast we are reproducing almost gives me nightmares sometimes. I think about how all we're doing is making humans the biggest resource on Earth, and how if it keeps going like this, humans will end up having to eat themselves. There won't be any plants left, and we'll have eaten all the animals. Humans will have to hide under rocks. That's a climate change, if only of the climate in my saddend heart.
Holly
-
Being thrilled by the flutter of a hummingbird, green blades of grass, the unsought smile of a stranger, a snow-capped mountain reflected in puddles, while at the same time never looking away from that horrific image of human crowds and scrupulous ignorance is a dance of grace that takes practice.
-
Remember the movie Soylent Green ! ! !
-
Good comments here, but I have one thing to add that I haven't seen yet: When you talk about limiting population growth it's worthwhile to look at where the limiting should take place. A long time ago I read about a concept called an "Indian Unit". An Indian Unit is the amount of resources a person living in India consumes, whether it's food, energy, water, whatever. And to be clear we're probably talking about the more rural, primitive part of India, where there isn't a great deal of electricity. Here in America it is said that every person uses resources equivalent to about 25 Indian Units, or 25 times what is being used by someone living in India consumes. So the burden we Oregonians place on our region is much higher per person than in developing nations. The reason this is important is that it's not uncommon for people from wealthy nations to propose population control for poor countries, where the numbers may be growing rapidly, rather than seeing how resource overuse is also part of the problem. Things are more complicated than simple numbers, in other words.
-
Yes, but don't assume those who advocate responsible family size are limiting their focus to "poor countries." And don't forget the billions in those "poor countries" don't plan to remain poor. As they strive to acquire an American lifestyle, everyone on the planet will be glad if there are less of them. The planet cannot even temporarily support 7 billion people at an American rate of consumption. Billions may be poor today, but if you want to lift them out of poverty, you'd better include smaller population size in your plans.
Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity -
International population is growing by over 200,000 people per day. This number is so large, the ecological implications of it are hard to grasp. Suffice to say that every 20 days or so, the total population of Norway is recreated on our planet.
With a geologically recognized mass-extinction event already underway (caused totally by human activity), rapidly increasing carbon emissions and a seemingly endless laundry list of melting glaciers, dry rivers, expanding deserts and the like, it is well within reason to think about how we can – as individuals, nations and an international community – diminish our ill-effects on the planetary ecosystem of which we are apart.
One part of this effort does need to include a healthy, stabilized population.
There are many wonderful NGOs doing good, progressive work towards these ends. If you are interested in supporting women’s empowerment, reproductive health rights and environmental conservation all at the same time, I recommend organizations like:
Population Media Center & Population Institute.
-
Consider honoring and protecting abortion doctors and clinics everywhere and donating time to volunteer for them. Protect them from the madmen Pro-Lifers with guns who try to murder them. Look at that phrase. "Pro-Lifer with a gun".
-
My father-in-law had the 98.5 theory on global warming. We all adding to the warm up with our body heat as well as the numerous other variables that are contributing.
-
Someone brought up the issue of not having children. I think you can still have kids and not impact the world by adopting. You're raising kids who are already part of the world. (I'm not sure if others have already brought his up.)
-
Oh, definitely! Adoption is such an important option for having a family. There are plenty of accidental pregnancies, but tons of people who either can't have kids or choose not to create them who do want to raise them. It seems like if adoption were more in the minds of folks, there'd be less focus on the two difficult and polarizing options of either abortion or being a young, unprepared parent.
No shame in giving up a kid for adoption--in fact, it's a very responsible decision. I was adopted and greatly appreciate my birth mom's decision.
-
I have been preaching adoption since the early 1970's. Sure hope it has had some effect. How will I ever know?
-
While one can never contradict the fact that the planet cannot support, as it is presently socially structured, the population, especially if it continues to grow, I think it is dangerous to use any form of coercion to control it. Beyond the obvious force, coercion comes in any form of penalty or reward, and divides between the ethical and, in my opinion, immoral.
-
Your guest mentioned the words 'population policy', shorthand for government coercion in the area of whether or not people choose to have babies. Now let us suppose that some generous couple chooses to have a large family. Will the 'population policy' penalize them? This would seem to violate elementary notions of equal justice. If push comes to shove, would such a 'population policy' come to resemble that in China, where untold numbers of women are forced to have abortions? Or does 'saving the planet' justify just about anything the would-be saviors want to do?
Just wondering.
Bob Harper
-
We agree that forced abortions is not a desired situation: let us not get into situations where it's that or starve.
I think available abortion is very desirable.
I think it would be wise to have a categorical expectation that people decide not to have children unless they have a reasonable plan for being able to take care of them. I think we agree that the best time to make that decision is long before birth.
Exceedingly undesirable is starvation or near-permanent besmirching of the global environment.
-
If '"told" numbers of women' were properly educated not to produce so many mouths to feed then 'untold numbers' would not have to endure forced abortions and could choose elected abortions instead.
"saving the planet" really means: saving the quality of enjoyable human life upon it.
-
Changing women's self image is essential. One innovative program is being developed to train women in anti-poaching units. At face value, microfinanced women may seem unlikely to succeed out in the bush. But the grant funding is for women, and the soul of the concept is to change the public's perception of women and poachers, as much as it is to save wildlife directly.
-
The population this year is almost 80,000,000 (80 million) more than it was a year ago. This is not sustainable.
We should at least do the VERY easy things first:
make family planning info and technology available to anyone who wants to delay or prevent a kid.
-
I thought that the purpose of environmentalism was to preserve the world for future generations. This "population policy" makes the future generations the problem-- which is just flawed. We should limit consumption, not people.
This is just a rehash of Malthusian ideas, which have racism at their core--because it is only 'certain' people who 'that many' children, not the 'educated, well off people.' It is the global north putting its problems on the global south.
The management of resources has more to do with policies rather then quantity of people-- food policy that is rediculous, development policies that mandate a certain number of parking spaces per unit rather then land to grow food within the city, etc.
the Pacific Institute has rescently shown that our water consumption is delcining, even though population is increasing--so it doesn't necessarily mean that greater population means greater consumption. This is a very shallow assumption, and I'd like to hear some real figures--not just assumptions. All I've heard so far is just a dressing up of Malthus and not much more...
-
At least in this discussion, I'm not seeing anyone say that future generations are flawed, or that people in general are flawed-- just the obscene numbers of us which make it hard for society to take care of everyone.
But you're totally right and I think everyone here is in agreement on your other point: those of us in the global North consume and pollute at ridiculously higher rate than anyone else, and that ain't right.
-
Laura needs to read more about what the Union of Concerned Scientists have documented. They have real figures. They are current.
-
It is love and respect for future generations that motivates environmentalists who advocate for wise, compassionate, forward-looking decisions about family size. You wouldn't toss your kids into a lifeboat so overcrowded that it was about to sink, and then suggest that everybody go on a diet.
We must manage our resources better. But that alone will not result in a positive future for our children and grandchildren. Population levels have to be managed better, too.
Just because Malthus was an elitist, does NOT make every modern-day sustainable population advocate a racist. I'm sure Hitler liked to have a roof over his head. Does that make everyone who wants shelter a Nazi?
There is plenty of data, from well-respected places like Global Footprint Network.
Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity -
Although I agree with the fact that population is adversely affecting the planet, I think that the guest is somewhat missing the point. As Al Gore said on his recent visit, education, particularly of girls and women, is a very effective method of birth control. The more educated a society, the lower the birth rate. That includes impoverished girls here at home- when girls see a future for themselves other than getting pregnant at 16, we will see a lowering of the birth rate amoung teens. Likewise, education in poorer nations means that families don't have so many kids as a form of life insurance for old age.
-
And BOYS need to be deprogrammed into not assuming the entitlement of sexual conquest that says "boys will be boys" etc.
-
Pledge to participate in the Global Population Speak Out -- 2010
Its time to raise the issue -- you can help.
-
Population control is critical to a stable climate & sustainable future for the simple reason that the resources of our single home planet are finite.
I read “The Population Bomb” back in 1968 at the age of 9, and since then I’ve watched the environment go from bad to worse. In fact, the world’s population has more than doubled in my lifetime (3 billion to 6.8 billion)
I decided not to have kids by the age of 12 (1971) in part because I’m pessimistic that mankind will be smart enough to avoid a catastrophic future; and the pathetic outcome of the talks in Copenhagen proves my point.
“Soylent Green” anyone?
-
It is quite simple. The larger the population, the smaller the "carbon footprint" must be per individual. Double the population, then each person's carbon footprint must be half of what it otherwise would be.
The real question with the unknown answer: Is it more realistic to decrease population, or decrease per person consumption, pollution, etc.
I think the world needs to do both. Given a choice, I would rather live in a world with fewer people and per person consumption was allowed to be higher. Those that restrain their reproduction should be allowed to consume more per individual than those who reproduce.
If we had policies such as no tax credits for children, no health insurance coverage for birthing, no public funded education, stopping all subsidies for children,... Then population growth might not increase as much, but those policies would be so unpopular, the population will not decrease anytime soon, for the US or the world. Ergo most of the effort needs to be put into producing energy with little or no CO2 added to the atmosphere.
Bob in Salem
-
My parents had 13 children and the problem with population growth became apparent during their 50th wedding anniversary celebration. I wrote a narrative about their married life and had each child go up to the stage as I mentioned their birth. After all 13 children (or representatives of the children who had already died) had gone , I stated "and then their children had children." By the time those children were on the stage I was amazed at how many people were created on this Earth by just two individuals. I very much believe that all the good toward reducing use of resources, taking public transit, recycling, or anything else will not do a thing to protect this Earth people who overpopulate it. People who think that the number of children they have is no one else's business are dead wrong. It affects all of us.
-
People who grew up with siblings often have such a negative idea about being an only child and therefore of having just one child. Maybe we "only's" need to spread the word--there's nothing wrong with it, there are advantages, and we don't feel bereft. You can have a child without having children, which may allow you to offer more to that child, save for retirement and avoid over-population. Don't feel guilty.
-
There are 6.8 billion humans and only 400 Sumatran tigers left. 40-50 percent of all plant and animal species are predicted by scientists to be extinct by 2050.
More people, more paving over wild spaces, more pollution, less clean water, etc.
What more needs to be said? Balance is the key to sustainability.
Pam
-
Hi Allison,
So I wanted to say that I am childless by choice, population was a factor, climate however was not. I am also vegan by choice, my decision to be vegan was influenced by climate.
With regards to one of the past callers who brought up the tax credits per child. If the govt grants a tax credit per child and made a change such as a credit for the first child, second negates, then a higher tax on 3rd, 4th etc.. If someone wanted to argue that the govt would then be involved in one's personal life... The same argument could be made about granting a tax credit for each child.
Vanessa
-
A true government is of the people and by the people. In the beginning of humans, there were tribes with a tribal chief. When the population got huge, then governments got huge. Do you really think that huge populations can exist without governments? There is no way not to have governments in our lives and cameras on every corner when we have 7 Billion walking around. Sorry folks, government will be sticking its nose into our private lives and if it is doing its job, it will mandate birth control. I don't like that, but what else are you going to do? Without mandated birth control, we are lost. Paul Erlich's wise words fell mostly upon deaf ears.
-
At this point, there are "lifestyle" changes we can make that may slow climate change. At some point, if population continues to increase, the non-discretionary things we do -- the stuff we do just to stay alive -- multiplied by poulation, will irreversibly diminish the planet's ability to support human life. Population control is VERY important.
-
Population control is the number one issue in relation to our current climate issues. The Earth is a finite space with finite resources, period! The more people there are the more polution, the higher the carbon, etc, etc... There really is no argument otherwise. It is time we started to think about this issue and consider that as a whole, we need to start to bring about a more stable growth that the planet can sustain.
-
I am pleased to hear we are talking about the taboo topic of population control. It is high time we do so, as uncomfortable it may make us feel. Our deep rooted values of having children should be evaluated again. It is a challenging job to raise children and hopefully our goal is to raise CITIZENS that can or will contribute to our community both regionally and globally.
If one is unable to provide for the children they produce, then tax payers are helping fund them. Can we discuss this?
-
A Jew talking about population control. Oh, that's rich!
The naivete and arrogance of the college educated middle class is amusing. Population growth is correlated to petroleum production. If peak oil is here, the problem is self-correcting. If not, we have a few more decades (perhaps centuries) of excessive production. In the end, it won't make much of a difference.
I wonder how many of you formulated your crackpot theories over your salmon dinner, with wine from Australia, after you drove your automobile from your office (which is located 10+ miles away from your heated and well-lit house).
You ARE the beneficiaries of this "excess of population", hypocrites.
Repent, little monkeys!
-
You clearly want to advance this discussion in a humble, productive way.
You seem to need a hug. Or a slap! Dick.
-
Your comment is biggoted, racist and culturally insensitive. Your argument would have weight if you had better tools with which to make your point.
-
Your anger doesn't help. Sure, most of us are living lives of excess in this country. These discussions will help us become more aware. I've been working on these issues as a volunteer for 15 years and when you are angry and point fingers you turn people away and the conversation shifts. Let's stay focused and listen to each other, educate each other and make the changes necessary for a healthy planet. Love, Peace, Unity & Healing.
Pam
-
Driving a prius is a solution?
No. Driving a prius will be illegal in China in a year or so. Not eficient enough!An Aptera makes 100-300mpg, a Prius 30-50mpg but even a current public bus makes better Gallons Per Passenger Mile.
-
In reality, we won't be driving personal vehicles. We will eventually be responsible for our own food production and mass transit will be limited. If you take into consideration peak oil, the climate crisis, species extinctions and population growth, the system will break down in the near future (unless, of course we make drastic changes quickly), and survival will be dependent on the communities in which we live. Look at other people around the world, it's already happening; severe droughts in Africa, Australia, floods, one billion people are hungry, 40,000 people die a day from hunger. Even here in the U.S. one third of all the major cities drinking water is unfit to drink. The oceans have more and more "dead zones", we are over fishing, acidification, we could go on and on. The edges are crumbling, we are in the middle and are not feeling it....yet.
So by educating those around us and living a life as an example, we can make a difference. Enough of a difference in time? I doubt it, but I can't put the weight of the world on my shoulders. The mainstream media will not discuss these issues since they are bought and paid for by BIG MONEY, just like the politicians.
Peace,
Pam
-
Yes Pam, Peace.
Do not ignore USA gas guzzlling trillion dollar military spending.
That's where you have to look for the money and the wasted of resources
-
My husband and I decided to adopt because we wanted to have a child but we were concerned with over population. There are a wide variety of options for adoption (state, international, domestic) and with federal tax credits, we received about 3/4 of our adoption fees back. We chose a local open adoption agency and have had our son since he was just 10 minutes old (he is now 2). There is no denying that we are his "real" parents and he is our "real" son and raising a child has brought us an incredible amount of joy.
-
I suggest you youtube these two words
adoption guatemala
-
Someone just talked about what would happen when space runs out (parks gone, etc.) What does the US Census say about birth rates of the average American woman? As an immigrant from Latin America, I know that assimilation has meant smaller family size among my siblings compared to that of my parents. I assume this is a trend that continues...higher education, fewer children. Can't we assume that American women will have fewer children over time?
-
The first guest sounded very reasonable until he said that the fact that people all over the world, including in Oregon, are hungry proves that there are too many people. The world produces enough food to feed all the people who are here. The rich countries hoard and waste much of it, especially the U.S. Throughout many decades, the rich countries, through the IMF and the World Bank, have enforced economic structures on the developing world in order to have them raise crops for the rich people, rather than food crops to feed their own families. This has created poverty and hunger where it didn't exist before. So-called "free trade" has exacerbated this effect. Many people in the U.S. are completely ignorant of this practice.This ignorance leads to rich white people thinking that poverty, hunger and gobal warming can be solved if only poor colored people would stop having too many babies. Our insane over-consumption is the biggest problem.
-Christina Sever, Corvallis
-
Both climate change and population growth is an issue of wealth. The more wealth one owns, the more s/he can participate in reducing their carbon footprint and the more control one has on one's reproductions. Poorer countries have more children per family; poorer families have more children; poorer families have fewer carbon reduction options.
Wealth and/or poverty must be part of this discussion. It is all well and good for middle-class American professors to discuss how population affects global warming -- and nice academic exercise. However, it is moot when considering the poverty on the ground in Africa, rural China or even poor communities in the US.
http://www.thinkgoodthoughts.com
-
In order to address overpopulation, we must first address the human rights of women. By educating and empowering women to take control of our own reproductive privilege, we can limit population growth. Education is the best form of birth control. Instituting draconian measures such as China's "one child policy" only results in more oppression of women through forced abortions. Support women's rights, institutions such as Planned Parenthood and education for all.
-
yes. education is the key to it all. well said
-
Obama's solution is to put women in jail if they get pregnant while serving the largest war empire in the history of Earth.
-
Large populations benefit some, but punishes everyone. This is due to "supply and demand" (which is what our economy is just naturally based on). More people means that each one has less value.
I remember years ago, NPR had 2 stories. One story was about a conservation effort to save some nearly extinct birds in South America. The other was about a program to help poor kids in a ghetto. There was some millions of dollars for thousands of kids. There was thousands of dollars for a 100 birds. It calculated out that each bird was worth $thousands, but each child only $hundreds.
At first I thought how terrible to think a bird is more valuable than a child. But no one decided that, it was just the way it worked out. Supply and demand. -
The third story was about a trillion dollar gas guzzling war machine.
I guess you payed attention to the birds but ignored the obvious.
-
Do you want to talk about human rights issues...what about an individuals rights to have quiet, free space to think, and room to move around. Where there it too many people it's hard to even breath, there is no space and the stress is high. How about the right for space and clean air and water??
-
yea(sarcasm), The king of England has the right to go hunting in unpopulated grounds. George Bush's rights include exterminating paraguayan indians in order to have his 100,000 acre ranch. Every billionare has the right to go hunting for moose from his helicopter!
-
Dealing with population control in the U.S. means dealing with religion and taxes. I can't think of any way to do this without hitting us in our pocket books. One child, small tax break, two children, no tax break, three children plus, tax the heck out of them. Make the morning after pill and abortion as available as viagra. End tax exemption for religion - most of them have a dangerous pro-fetus agenda that they call pro-life, but their protection ends once the fetus becomes a breathing person.
-
Yes! Plan B should be over the counter. In fact, in many states pharmacies won't even carry it. It's all about empowering women through education and choice.
-
Religion and taxes?
What about trillions spent in a continuous state of war with more than 3 countries at one time?
How much does the USA spend in war!?
-
But wars decreases the population. So in the long run, won't that decrease greenhouse gases? I think I am making a bad attempt at humour here.
On a more serious note, all of us must do what we can to reduce global warming. Not populating shouldn't allow one to consume huge resources, but those that choose to reproduce should somehow be called on to consume even less than average.
If there was a carbon tax, it would make cost of living go up and U.S. population growth would probably decrease as a result. If an economical carbon free source of energy was developed, it doesn't matter what population does.
Bob
-
In 1984, when I was 26 years old, I realized that the ecological and socialogical problems we were facing at that time and into the future were largely connected to overpopulation. Even though I love children, and dreamed of having two someday, I voluntarily chose not to. Given the evidence of the effect of overpopulation on the planet it was the right choice.
One thing I have found that conservatives and liberals have in common is that they all feel they have a god given right to procreate. Conservatives may drive Hummvies and liberals may drive hybrids, but suggest to either that they limit themselves to two children and they'll try to run you over.
The Earth is a living organism. We are like living cells. In balance we are of benefit to the Earth. When a cell goes out of control it becomes a cancer. As we are now we are like a cancer on the Earth. The Earth will find a way to cure itself, whether it is global warming or AIDS, or something else.
As with all human endeavors just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
-
Indeed, we as people on the planet are like the cells within our bodies, all working together. The amazing benefit we have is that we have self-awareness and verbal communication. We just need to recognize this model and develop a more global-systems awareness, and temper our vitriolic communication with humility and a focus on common goals...
-
Suggest to Democrats or Republicans that there should be no gas guzzling trillion dollar wars and they go into convulsions and start blaming families for crimes of reproduction.
-
Good show, TOL folks, you've brought some good knowledgeable guests on to talk about a very important subject. I'm not hearing any of the typical lying and ranting, fear-mongering, rightwing Conservative Republican, whackos.
I'd say one of your best shows ever.
So thanks.
-
What I've never understood is why do people want more than one or two kids?
Since we don't live in an agraian society where you need a large family to work the farm, what's the actual benefit?
Do you see it as prestige to have and support a large family?
I think it's really silly that people who've had or would like to have are reading these facts and then are acting all defensive. Is this your gut reation to seeing what you did or what you plan to do is bad?
-
I think after two children the Government tax credit should go away because after two children, someone other than just Mom and Dad is assisting with the children and why?.
If you have nine children to keep the farm going, then the farm needs to make money to pay for the outgoings of the family.
I have yet to see a rear window graphic showing Mom, Dad, and three to four children plus a kite and a dog on a Prius while stuck in traffic on Hwy26 on my motorcycle. It is usually on a Chevy Suburban or Tahoe. Right there is a carbon footprint impact.
Regards,
-
To pay for additional trillions of dollars in military spending?
-
To the current caller @ 9:53 --- Adopt! Adopt! Adopt!
-
Adoption scandal!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiOGzKuXP3I
-
Nature and mathematics don't care about us.
If we don't live within our means, we don't live.
Nature bats last.
-
Well Said!
-
What is the carbon print of trillion dollars spending in a gas guzzling military empire?
-
Concerning population and global warming:
I remember (40 or 50 years ago!) reading a science article on 'what is the ulimate limit on how many people could live on earth'. It assumed that ALL problems (famine, disease, etc) could be solved.
I don't remember the number of people, but it said that the whole earth (every square foot) would be covered by a multistory building. It would be filled with people, shoulder to shoulder (so there were no cars or anything else). Such a building could only be 50 stories tall, because the heat from so many bodies on the lower floors would make the 51st story too hot to sustain life. The earth simply could not radiate all the waste heat out into space fast enough!
The article concluded that, even though it assumed that ALL the problems of keeping so many people alive could be fixed, this basic problem of physics would be the ulitimate limit.
How about that for irony! -
Until everyone learns to keep physics, chemistry and the ultimate laws of Nature in mind, all logic and therefore hope is futile. No amount of praying to god will stop Nature and physics from occurring.
-
I won't be able to listen to today's show until this evening, but this forum gives me hope that at least locally some people feel as I do, that overpopulation should be the primary environmental issue, and all others become meaningless until we deal with it.
I joined Population Connection when they were still Zero Population Growth, and grew up in the '70s when it was already obvious that our lifestyle was unsustainable. I chose not to have children, became a vegetarian in my 50's, bike to work whenever possible, and am creating a habitat in my backyard, yet even among family and friends I am misunderstood. Until everyone acknowledges the nightmare of overpopulation, we're doomed.
-
(From Chapter 18 of "Nigelquest" (blog) dealing with population and the environment)
Biologists placed 29 deer on St. Matthew’s Island in the Bering Sea, and estimated that, based on the amount of vegetation and the absence predators, the population should stabilize between 1700 and 2300 deer. It took about 20 years for the population to reach those numbers. During that time, the population was healthy and active. But the deer still multiplied, exceeding 2300 even as the vegetation was over-browsed. Their numbers reached 3,000, 4,000 and then 5,000. The stressed plants had begun to die and yet the deer, near death themselves from starvation, kept breeding. Temporarily, the population neared 6,000, about three times the sustainable level, and then began a calamitous decline. Within 18 months, there were only 42 deer left, a decline of more than 99%.
If human population tripled again from its current level, to say 20 billion, and then went through an equivalent collapse, there would be about 200 million people left on the earth, or about 2/3rds of the present U.S. population. Do we really want to leave our fate in the hands of Nature? Or God? Or Allah?
We might persuade ourselves that “overshooting” our food supply, as the deer did, could not happen to a species as intelligent as humans.
Unfortunately, thoughtful, educated humans overshoot sustainable resources all the time. When fishermen discover an efficient method for catching a high-value fish, the size and sophistication of the fleet increases and soon fish stocks begin to decline. The fishermen, having to make payments on new equipment, put in more hours in order to catch more fish. Stocks decline further. In spite of scientists’ warnings that a collapse would bankrupt all of them, they petition regulatory agencies to open up the fishing grounds so they can take even more. The resource collapses. Fish stocks, like other depleted resources such as game and lands take decades to recover, and some never do.
-
(From Chapter 18 of Nigelquest - population and the environment)
There are those who argue that technological advances in agriculture can make up for the loss of natural food sources. An expanded “green revolution” will increase food production faster than population can grow. With plenty of food, there would be no problem of over-population. Humans are not herd mammals, they insist, not deer or sheep, but family-oriented, competitive creatures that have many more similarities to our favorite research animal.
John Calhoun of the Laboratory of Psychology of the National Institute of Mental Health placed five pregnant rats in a quarter acre pen, and supplied them with enough food and nesting materials for 5,000 rats. Then he sat back and watched.
At first, the mothers and their young huddled near the nests, afraid of the large, unoccupied space. As the population grew, the rats explored and eventually filled the pen. Free of predators and stress-related diseases, all the rats were active and healthy, and fights between males resembled ritual more than combat. It was rat heaven. But still the rats continued to multiply. Soon, a few dominant males staked out huge territories and defended themselves and their mates against all intruders. All the rest of the rats, weak and cowed, crowded into conditions resembling the worst human slums and ghettos. Gang rape and gang warfare were common, females and young died in prodigious numbers, rape of both females and males was frequent, mothers had numerous miscarriages and few rats were healthy or lived long. Cannibalism combined with infant mortality rates as high as 96% underscored the misery. Rat heaven had become rat hell, in spite of there being enough food for 5,000. And the number of rats never exceeded 200.
In the small pen of planet Earth, a few dominant males live on gated estates while the masses proliferate in stifling slums. A few rich people fly in private jets and have golden parachutes while billions sleep in tin-roofed cardboard boxes. The bonds of civil society strain. Humans have overshot the carrying capacity of the land, air and water, and still they breed, just like the deer and the rats. Shouldn’t we be smarter?
-
(From Chapter 19 Nigelquest - population and the environment)
No country show us the fate of man so well as Haiti. In the last 50 years, population on the island has risen from 3.8 million to 9 million, and during the same period, forest cover declined from 60% to 2%. Population density is 324 people/square kilometer compared to 31 people/square kilometer for the U.S. Although Haiti has 28% arable land (the U.S. has only 18%), erosion, overuse, desertification, flooding and high birth rates (an average of 4 children per woman compared to 2 per woman in the States) condemn most Haitians to a culture much like that of Calhoun’s rats. The numbers say it clearly: infant mortality stands at 60 deaths per 1,000 live births (compared to 3/1,000 for Japan and 6/1,000 for the States), and 80% of Haitians live in poverty.
A collapse of Haiti’s population should result because already mothers there feed their children mud cakes to fill their stomachs and keep them from crying. But the world has come to Haiti’s aid. External contributions of food and the presence of the United Nations Stabilization Mission (soldiers) prevents Haiti deteriorating further, which is a shame because then mankind could see its future since the Earth has no external police force and external food source.
Some combination of the deer model and the rat model will occur to the whole globe. Even if it were possible to limit the size of all families immediately, population would continue to grow for a generation or two because there are so many young people reaching breeding age. No matter what we do, extinctions will continue and resources will deteriorate. The complexity and diversity that make the world so beautiful will loose ground to subdivisions and will be crowded out by ‘development.’ The world as we’ve enjoyed it slips away.
Grandpa, what were elephants like?
Awesome, boy, awesome. Magnificent, actually. And caring. I can take you to a movie. You can see for yourself what wonderful creatures they were.
Why’d they kill them, Grandpa? And why’d they kill the Orkas and the wolves?
The old man was silent for a long time.
Grandma, the young boy said at last, when will the mud cakes be ready?
-
If we suggest policy that incorporates population control then we violating "human rights". ??? Apparently, all of the "other"species that we share the planet with have No "rights".
-
Perhaps it is a true test of human wisdom to realize when there are too many of us for a given planet's resources.
However, those who claim to clearly realize that might want to test out their own convictions by volunteeering not to use any more of the planet's resources. we will applaud their sincerity.
In the meantime, those of us who desire to stay and celebrate our own lives and those of our children will search for efficiencies and ways to cooperate and ways to partner with the planet to sustain human life.
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
Comments are now closed.
And meglemire had a more personal take on population and climate change. She wrote in on our Child Free by Choice show:
The UN Climate Change Summit just wrapped up in Copenhagen, and one thing that was not discussed was population.